The more you meddle with a reporter’s story, the less influence you have. It’s a fine line. PR pros want to shape how their organization is represented… but push too hard, and you lose credibility fast. I’ve seen it happen: 🔹 The follow-up emails trying to reframe a quote 🔹 The requests to “soften” language that makes the story newsworthy Journalists aren’t in the business of making companies look good. They’re there to tell a strong, factual story. The best way to build influence isn’t to micromanage coverage. It’s to be a valuable, trusted source reporters want to come back to. 💡 PR pros & journalists, where’s the line between guiding and meddling?
Adam Belmont
5mo
Even if there's no adverse affect on the story, there's an adverse affect on how they feel about you. Which is not to be underestimated when they ask going through their long list of sources, 'do I want to talk to X again'? Clients don't know the position they put you in when asking for things from the journo, but it's up to us to do what's right and not sacrifice ourselves in the name of client service if it truly doesn't make sense. My name is not X, btw. That's Twitter.
James Franey
5mo
This is very true. I simply don't trust PRs who act this way.
Beth Sanmartin
5mo
I can't imagine requesting "softening" or reading the story beforehand. That's not my job or my place. My job is to provide the facts and the context, then wait for the coverage and monitor how it's doing with the public. If it's positive, GREAT! If it's not, why? Do we need to change something? I have only ever reached back out to request factual corrections and I intend to keep it that way.
Anendra Singh
5mo
Uncompromising journalism simply doesn't have a caveat/clause for "meddling" with editorial content. It's laid out, without any ambiguity, to interviewees, before the voice recorder is switched on, that they'll have to trust the journalist's professionalism and MSM's guidelines to disseminate news, with their ABCs (accuracy, brevity, clarity), on the foundation of social responsibility. Those who don't feel compelled reserve the right to opt out of said interview. That simply means the scribe did grant interviewee the right to express but the latter had turned it down. The news will be published/broadcast, regardless. Unfortunately, MSM have been compromising those standards to chase the dollar in the past few decades, more than ever. If there is editorial censorship and relaxing of rules to allow interviewees to "approve content", they stem primarily from the micromanagers masquerading as "editors". Those who wish to "soften" news or embark on "promotional" journeys, there's always the paid avenue of advertorial or "supplements", as newspapers like to call them. The exception to that comes from an editor/news editor to have lawyers check articles that may be flirting with defamatory material or a potential for a party to sue.
I agree 💯
Joe Connole, MA
5mo
Well said Simon
Rob Lynch
5mo
This is why the up front work - message development and media training - is so important. If the spokesperson is prepared going in, there's less to meddle with on the backend.
Had a director call me the next day and say "do not say anything about what I said to you about CBC cause sometimes they pay my bills". So...I didn't. Anyway that director is famous now and the article I wrote is not on the internet LOL 😆
Provide the facts, stats and strong spokespeople — then trust journalists to do their jobs.